i think im right in saying that Jesus never addressed the issue directly, does that mean we should still follow the old testament advice on gays?

karenoka27

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:24 PM

I think there are enough threads on this board that you could find your answer too.

Racso

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:32 PM

wow, its a bit grumpy around here isnt it!!!

HisLeast

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:36 PM

wow, its a bit grumpy around here isnt it!!!

Is it? I don't think so. There's a handfull of these threads on the front pages of several areas of this forum. There's also the search function at the top. She's not being grumpy, she's empowering you to find existing threads where the info is ready and waiting for you.

Anyway, although Jesus didn't address it directly, both the Old and New Testament do...and since we consider the Bible to be our ultimate written authority on truth, we follow Scripture.

In short, the direct answer to your question is yes, it's wrong. Take a looksee at Romans, chapter one, around verses 24-32. It makes the answer rather clear cut.

Racso

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:39 PM

My mum is gay. what should i do?

i know parts of the OT say stone 'em, obviously im not going to do that to my own mum! or anyone else.

whats the best advice here?

does doing nothing put ME in danger of going to hell too?

VerticalReality

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:39 PM

i think im right in saying that Jesus never addressed the issue directly, does that mean we should still follow the old testament advice on gays?

Since homosexuality is also spoken strongly against in the New Testament, I'd say it is safe to say that it is still wrong and will always be wrong according to God's Word. Not to mention that common sense should tell everyone that it just ain't natural.

Racso

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:44 PM

i dunno man...

homosexuality is common amongst lots of animal species...

wron in terms of reproducing, but if 2 people love eachother, whats the problem?!

Athanasius

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:48 PM

i dunno man...

homosexuality is common amongst lots of animal species...

wron in terms of reproducing, but if 2 people love eachother, whats the problem?!

It's not 'homosexuality' in the same sense we think it is. Appealing to the animal kingdom is known as the 'naturalistic fallacy'. Monkeys throw their own poop, does that mean it's acceptable for me to do the same? Seals have multiple partners and kill each other as a result; does that mean it's alright for us to do the same? Obviously not. Female praying mantises kill their mates while copulating. . . You get the idea?

The thing is, is that these people may 'love' each other, but they aren't 'loving' to its fullest potential. They aren't living life as free as they could be in Christ. It's like having a bit of the truth but not the full truth. Sure you still have that bit of the truth, but you could have so much more. I mean no, we don't go around stoning homosexuals, but as other posters have said the OT and the NT are very clear.

ProjectPeter

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:50 PM

i dunno man...

homosexuality is common amongst lots of animal species...

wron in terms of reproducing, but if 2 people love eachother, whats the problem?!
Dogs for example do a lot of things that are common amongst them. Doesn't mean I would follow their example. I'd rather shake your hand than sniff. I'd rather take a bath than lick. Mind you... common among critters. But so what?

Racso

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:51 PM

wow.

i respect your ideas, xel, but ive never seen that in the bible. it just says its bad, not why.

Would Jesus have condoned the stoning of homosexuals?

my heart says no, but my bible says yes.

ProjectPeter

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:51 PM

It's not 'homosexuality' in the same sense we think it is. Appealing to the animal kingdom is known as the 'naturalistic fallacy'. Monkeys throw their own poop, does that mean it's acceptable for me to do the same? Seals have multiple partners and kill each other as a result; does that mean it's alright for us to do the same? Obviously not. Female praying mantises kill their mates while copulating. . . You get the idea?

The thing is, is that these people may 'love' each other, but they aren't 'loving' to its fullest potential. They aren't living life as free as they could be in Christ. It's like having a bit of the truth but not the full truth. Sure you still have that bit of the truth, but you could have so much more. I mean no, we don't go around stoning homosexuals, but as other posters have said the OT and the NT are very clear.
Yeah... same train of thought there. This is one of those points used trying to justify the act and it has always amazed me. It's really lacking in common sense much less validity.

ProjectPeter

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:53 PM

wow.

i respect your ideas, xel, but ive never seen that in the bible. it just says its bad, not why.

Would Jesus have condoned the stoning of homosexuals?

my heart says no, but my bible says yes.Actually what Jesus would have done is told them to repent and turn to God. He'd of not condoned stoning, but in them changing their mind, turning from sin and turning to God instead.

Racso

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:53 PM

no no no, because animals do something doesnt mean we should.

i was making the point that homosexuality is not 'unnatural' as a previous post stated. it seems to be just as natural (though less common) to humans and animals as hetrosexuality.

Theophilus

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:54 PM

My mum is gay. what should i do?

i know parts of the OT say stone 'em, obviously im not going to do that to my own mum! or anyone else.

whats the best advice here?

does doing nothing put ME in danger of going to hell too?
You love her, and live a Christian witness in front of her. You witness to her gently, and as the Holy Spirit leads you.

As for your second question, I don't think it puts you in danger of hell, per se...but I know that since you love her, you don't want her leaving this plane of existence without knowing Christ...thus, you'll want to witness to her as best you can. Christ has directed us to spread the Gospel...and you need to start close to home, friend. :)

ProjectPeter

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:56 PM

no no no, because animals do something doesnt mean we should.

i was making the point that homosexuality is not 'unnatural' as a previous post stated. it seems to be just as natural (though less common) to humans and animals as hetrosexuality.
Dogs sniffing behinds of other dogs is natural to a dog. Men sniffing other mans behinds is not natural for men. Just because it is natural for a bird to fly... don't make it natural for man to fly. Again... you are using faulty logic here if you really stop to think about it.

Athanasius

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:57 PM

no no no, because animals do something doesnt mean we should.

i was making the point that homosexuality is not 'unnatural' as a previous post stated. it seems to be just as natural (though less common) to humans and animals as hetrosexuality.

Animals doing 'something' that resembles what we call homosexuality doesn't make it natural, either. In fact, it's no argument for homosexuality being natural. Animals live in what we would call 'broken homes'; people live in broken homes and society falls apart as a result.

To prove that homosexuality was natural you'd have to show that animals love, have preferred the 'same sex' over the other sex. Have made a conscious decision to do so. . . In other words, it's impossible. Animal's aren't conscious, they don't feel love, they can't 'decide'. (no, they aren't 'born gay')

ProjectPeter

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:57 PM

My mum is gay. what should i do?

i know parts of the OT say stone 'em, obviously im not going to do that to my own mum! or anyone else.

whats the best advice here?

does doing nothing put ME in danger of going to hell too?And like Theo said... you love her. It's your mom. Follow his advice there and you will do well.

Racso

Apr 3rd 2008, 03:59 PM

but humans arent born wanting to sniff eachothers bums. so that would be unnatural.

sexuality is something humans can be born with, animals can be born being gay too.

the point is that its a natural occurrence in both humans and animals.

Athanasius

Apr 3rd 2008, 04:01 PM

but humans arent born wanting to sniff eachothers bums. so that would be unnatural.

No but animals like to sniff bums. And since animals practice 'homo. . ' err, sniff 'bums', it would therefore become natural for humans to practice 'homo. . ' err, sniff 'bums' if they so chose.
It's pointing out your logical fallacy. . .

Now come on. . . Theo's advice was right on. No we don't stone homosexuals but yes it's still a sin. That completely answers your first post, so why keep going?

VerticalReality

Apr 3rd 2008, 04:04 PM

Okay, all the rest aside how about this . . .

Homosexuality is wrong because God said so. Period.

Racso

Apr 3rd 2008, 04:06 PM

coolies.

why does God find it wrong?

ProjectPeter

Apr 3rd 2008, 04:06 PM

Okay, all the rest aside how about this . . .

Homosexuality is wrong because God said so. Period.
Nah... that's just to simple and all. :lol:

ProjectPeter

Apr 3rd 2008, 04:06 PM

coolies.

why does God find it wrong?
Because it isn't natural. ;)

HisLeast

Apr 3rd 2008, 04:11 PM

why does God find it wrong?

I can guess, but ultimately I'd just be guessing. Sometimes God works like that. Its not for us to know why, but to understand the prohibition.

When I was 5, I wouldn't have understood why its a bad idea to try jamming forks into electrical outlets. I didn't have the wisdom or understanding to realize I could get electrocuted or why that would be a bad thing.

ProjectPeter

Apr 3rd 2008, 04:13 PM

I am going to move this on into contro simply because it had some decent post in it! But it really hasn't a place here in Bible Chat.

Theophilus

Apr 3rd 2008, 04:15 PM

I am going to move this on into contro simply because it had some decent post in it! But it really hasn't a place here in Bible Chat.
Never seems to take long for these threads to wind up there...does it? ;)

jesuslover1968

Apr 3rd 2008, 04:32 PM

coolies.

why does God find it wrong?

Well, we don't know the mind of God in all It's aspects, this is true...but...God created all things. He created us. He knows what we were made for and what our functions would be, as well as those of the animal kingdom. For you to use what animals do as an example of what should be okay for us is pretty much the same as using satan as an example of what we can do as well, and you know where that leads...straight to hell...it just doesn't fit. It's a very immature answer that gay people use to try to condone what they do as right, when they know it's wrong. Think about it this way...if they were right, they wouldn't need to use any excuse or faulty examples at all. God said it was wrong, period. God made male and female. Nowhere does it say that He made male and male, female and female or male, male and female, etc....I'm sure you get the point.
As another aside, if you are thinking that God would ok it, and if you love someone that is all there should be to it, and since you profess to be a Christian, try looking it up in the Bible and giving us some scripture to back up what you are saying.
God did order homosexuals stoned to death, and He also said that disobedient children were to be stoned, as well. That was under the law. We are not under the law, but Grace, which Jesus came to make possible. He would have told them to turn from their sin and do it no more, and to follow Him...
If your mom is gay, then you should witness to her in love, but make sure that you understand what it means to fully follow Jesus before you do so or your witness will be for nothing. If you don't even know for sure whether it's wrong, how can you explain to your mom the holiness of God? His love, His mercy, His patience, or His Judgement?

Jeanne D

Apr 3rd 2008, 04:42 PM

I think Romans 1:24-27 says it pretty clearly.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Revinius

Apr 3rd 2008, 05:10 PM

Hey mate. We are told Homosexuality is a sin, an "abomination against God".

As a young Christian the best way to view this is not to look at what the Bible says then examine your immediate surroundings but to look at the Bible in the context of its own surroundings before looking around yourself.

Let me demonstrate.

Homosexuality is Sin. What is sin? Sin is a rebellion from God but it is more than that. Sin is taking what God gave us for our good and His glory and using it for our own selfish desires. Sin is a direct contradiction to what God is all about.

God created us so we could give him glory by enjoying him forever. This is a massive statement as it says that God has our best interests at heart. That in essence He is our best interest. By taking what God made for good and turning it to our own purpose we are not living by His design, its not acknowledging Him in His rightful place as Lord. Homosexuality is a sin like any other, its one facet in an entire life lived in rebellion to God.

If my mum identified herself as homosexual the first thing i would do is pray, the second i would do is love, the third would be to live. Not just eating and breathing, but live Biblically. Live like a man who has been smashed down by God and risen again by his Grace. I would be fruitful in how i lived, and treat every day as a gift.

I love my family so much.... and i can honestly say its the hardest thing to do, to wake up every day and know they are all on a direct course for Hell. I pray constantly that the Lord would make them see, that he would use me as a tool to reveal truth to them. That my friend....is how you should be to your mum, show her the love God died to give you.

DAISHI

Apr 4th 2008, 12:19 AM

I think homosexuality i natural in that it has a genetic root, but a lot of sinful behaviors have a genetic root. Out of control rage has genetic roots but that doesn't mean indulging it s right.

Revinius

Apr 4th 2008, 04:28 AM

I think homosexuality i natural in that it has a genetic root, but a lot of sinful behaviors have a genetic root. Out of control rage has genetic roots but that doesn't mean indulging it s right.

How does rage have a genetic route? Rage is just a symptom of not being able to control your emotions, the fact that a father and son have similar symptoms could be down to upbringing.

I dont think homosexuality is genetic. Once you start making truth claims like "it is natural" the next step will inevitably be that its natural therefore its OK. In this sinful world we live in people are indeed born with birth defects but because they may be born with a natural attraction to men (unlikely) doesnt mean that choice is removed from the equation. We all have some level of autonomy and to say that something is natural alludes to the possibility that its beyond the persons control. But it is!

IPet2_9

Apr 4th 2008, 04:34 AM

One funny thing about saying homosexuality is genetic: those same people who believe in that, also tend to believe in evolution. Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. So if you're homosexual, that can mean only one thing: you are the end of the line. One would think genetic homosexuals would have been weeded out millions of years ago. Homosexuals can't breed, you know? Not to sound offensive; just stating the abundantly obvious.

DAISHI

Apr 4th 2008, 04:54 AM

How does rage have a genetic route? Rage is just a symptom of not being able to control your emotions, the fact that a father and son have similar symptoms could be down to upbringing.

I dont think homosexuality is genetic. Once you start making truth claims like "it is natural" the next step will inevitably be that its natural therefore its OK. In this sinful world we live in people are indeed born with birth defects but because they may be born with a natural attraction to men (unlikely) doesnt mean that choice is removed from the equation. We all have some level of autonomy and to say that something is natural alludes to the possibility that its beyond the persons control. But it is!

Genetic predispositions cause differentiating hormonal levels, concerning overactive glands that react with higher intensity than in the average population. While environmental factors obviously play into how people handle their emotions, some individuals are simply born with a stronger tendency to outbursts of rage, even near uncontrollable rage.

Saying it is natural does not make it okay. Think about this for a moment. Mutations occur on the human genome every generation, most being neutral or harmful. Very rarely are there beneficial mutations. We understand that the world we live in is fallen and only a shadow of that which God created, therefore we have death and sickness. Is it so hard to conceive that some of the very demons we must face stem from this fall, because of errors and slips on the human genetic code? Simply because you have a disposition or a tendency towards a type of behavior does not mean you have to slip into it. Some have addictive behavior, but not all become addicts, for instance.

Roelof

Apr 4th 2008, 01:29 PM

i think im right in saying that Jesus never addressed the issue directly, does that mean we should still follow the old testament advice on gays?

Rasco

I would like to answer you by giving some Bible texts:

Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, (1 Co 6:9, NKJV)

And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I give judgment. Go, and sin no more. (Joh 8:11)

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, ( Heb 10:26)

MrAnteater

Apr 4th 2008, 01:39 PM

Rasco

I would like to answer you by giving some Bible texts:

Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, (1 Co 6:9, NKJV)

And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I give judgment. Go, and sin no more. (Joh 8:11)

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, ( Heb 10:26)

I was going to mention 1 Cor 6, as it's the strongest evidence that homosexuality is a sin. Even if someone wants to explain homosexuality away from the OT as part of the old covenant, its clearly reinforced in the new covenant with Jesus.

harry

Apr 4th 2008, 01:54 PM

Homosexuals can't breed - IPet2_9
-------------
that's not true.

a male homosexual could mate with a lesbian - and nowadays thanks to reproductive `magic` (genes, testtubes, etc) there are all sorts of novel ways whereby gays could breed.

Theophilus

Apr 4th 2008, 03:45 PM

- IPet2_9
-------------
that's not true.

a male homosexual could mate with a lesbian - and nowadays thanks to reproductive `magic` (genes, testtubes, etc) there are all sorts of novel ways whereby gays could breed.

...but then it's not homos*xual breeding, it's heteros*xual...a man and a woman.

Two men cannot breed, nor can two women...just for the record.

IPet2_9

Apr 4th 2008, 04:10 PM

and nowadays thanks to reproductive `magic` (genes, testtubes, etc) there are all sorts of novel ways whereby gays could breed.

That only further discredits the theory that homosexuality is genetic. Instead it is a product of our advanced science and ability to alter nature.

Revinius

Apr 4th 2008, 04:44 PM

Genetic predispositions cause differentiating hormonal levels, concerning overactive glands that react with higher intensity than in the average population. While environmental factors obviously play into how people handle their emotions, some individuals are simply born with a stronger tendency to outbursts of rage, even near uncontrollable rage.

Saying it is natural does not make it okay. Think about this for a moment. Mutations occur on the human genome every generation, most being neutral or harmful. Very rarely are there beneficial mutations. We understand that the world we live in is fallen and only a shadow of that which God created, therefore we have death and sickness. Is it so hard to conceive that some of the very demons we must face stem from this fall, because of errors and slips on the human genetic code? Simply because you have a disposition or a tendency towards a type of behavior does not mean you have to slip into it. Some have addictive behavior, but not all become addicts, for instance.

So to refer back to your original message:

I think homosexuality i natural in that it has a genetic root, but a lot of sinful behaviors have a genetic root. Out of control rage has genetic roots but that doesn't mean indulging it s right.

I say this out of love, but i do think its misleading to common man man to make a statement like this. When reading it the inference is that when someone has a violent outburst it is due to their genetics. Thus they arent as culpable when it happens. I would disagree, and being someone who has a violent past i am in a good position to make such a call. All human actions come down to the base element of the minds control over the body, the body is in essence its slave. To maintain that the issue of rage is some thing "out of control" is a fallacy as in such things the body is ultimately a slave to the mind. When someone 'loses control' they are that essence letting the body assert dominance over the mind. This is a form of sin.

As Christians its our duty, nay our mission, to make sin something in our past. Ofcourse its a battle that can never be ultimately won except through Christ but we are told to be fruitful and the mission has been given. I am sure you agree but i just thought it somewhat careless to drop a statement combining the thought that rage is natural and that it is something beyond the control of those who committ it.

DAISHI

Apr 4th 2008, 09:45 PM

So to refer back to your original message:

I say this out of love, but i do think its misleading to common man man to make a statement like this. When reading it the inference is that when someone has a violent outburst it is due to their genetics. Thus they arent as culpable when it happens. I would disagree, and being someone who has a violent past i am in a good position to make such a call. All human actions come down to the base element of the minds control over the body, the body is in essence its slave. To maintain that the issue of rage is some thing "out of control" is a fallacy as in such things the body is ultimately a slave to the mind. When someone 'loses control' they are that essence letting the body assert dominance over the mind. This is a form of sin.

As Christians its our duty, nay our mission, to make sin something in our past. Ofcourse its a battle that can never be ultimately won except through Christ but we are told to be fruitful and the mission has been given. I am sure you agree but i just thought it somewhat careless to drop a statement combining the thought that rage is natural and that it is something beyond the control of those who committ it.

I actually said the opposite. I said that a predisposition never means it justifies the indulgence. A predisposition towards one type of behavior or another, either addictive, anger, homosexual, etc., does not justify an indulgence in it. It becomes that individual's particular to overcome by the power of Christ. I would hope never to convey that indulgence of a behavior is justified simply because one's genetics predisposition them towards that behavior. Do animals kill in nature? Do animals act out homosexually in nature? Yes and yes, but that does not justify man's indulgence of these behaviors.

Revinius

Apr 5th 2008, 03:44 AM

I actually said the opposite. I said that a predisposition never means it justifies the indulgence. A predisposition towards one type of behavior or another, either addictive, anger, homosexual, etc., does not justify an indulgence in it. It becomes that individual's particular to overcome by the power of Christ. I would hope never to convey that indulgence of a behavior is justified simply because one's genetics predisposition them towards that behavior. Do animals kill in nature? Do animals act out homosexually in nature? Yes and yes, but that does not justify man's indulgence of these behaviors.

So why mention genetics then if its a moot point?

Clavicula_Nox

Apr 6th 2008, 01:49 PM

He wasn't using genetics to discuss a way to justify it, he was using it as a means to show it has a place in the natural world.

Revinius

Apr 6th 2008, 05:11 PM

ahh. But given this is a discussion on morality does the natural world have anything to do with it? Give then Christian perspective the natural world is heading down a similar drain pipe to humanity. The difference being that humanity pushes itself down the pipe. :P

Clavicula_Nox

Apr 6th 2008, 10:34 PM

If you didn't notice, he was using it as an argument against "natural-ness" as justification. The OP tried implying it should be acceptable because it's found in nature, Daishi and a few others said that just because something is natural doesn't mean it is right and or acceptable.

Why argue against someone who is arguing for the same cause, just at a different angle? There is no need for Blue on Blue.

Revinius

Apr 7th 2008, 10:12 AM

If you didn't notice, he was using it as an argument against "natural-ness" as justification. The OP tried implying it should be acceptable because it's found in nature, Daishi and a few others said that just because something is natural doesn't mean it is right and or acceptable.

Why argue against someone who is arguing for the same cause, just at a different angle? There is no need for Blue on Blue.

Apologies, i must have misunderstood.

Clavicula_Nox

Apr 7th 2008, 03:15 PM

It happens, things get pretty tense around here sometimes.

harry

Apr 8th 2008, 11:53 AM

tony blair the ex-brit prime minister has sold his soul to the gays.
--------
England’s largest and most well-known homosexual activist organization, held its annual fundraising dinner last night, raising over $600,000. A sizeable chunk of the funds raised came in thanks to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair – the same Tony Blair who was received into the Catholic Church only a few months ago by top English prelate Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/images/2008b/TonyBlairstonewall.gifThe opportunity to have tea with Tony Blair secured a bid of $40,000 in an auction held at the dinner. Incidentally Blair was the keynote speaker at last year’s Stonewall fundraiser. During his speech Blair thanked the gathered attendees for their help in passing his legislation to permit homosexual civil unions...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08040404.html

Ecumaniac

Apr 8th 2008, 12:55 PM

I am going to move this on into contro simply because it had some decent post in it! But it really hasn't a place here in Bible Chat.

Peter, you are aware that this means Rasco can no longer read any responses to him in this thread? Unless you have given him special access to the Controversial Issues forums, that is.

It seems a little unfortunate if he can't, since he started this thread to seek advice about his mother! This might also explain (combined with Spontaneous Character Insertion Syndrome, which apparently causes keyboards to insert random symbols into words like "gay" and "homosexual") why he had trouble finding decent threads about homosexuality.

Ta-An

Apr 8th 2008, 03:39 PM

is homosexuality wrong?
Yes .

daughter

Apr 8th 2008, 03:49 PM

Well, let's hope Blair took the opportunity to witness to them, and tell them the good news about Jesus...

Well, let's hope Blair took the opportunity to witness to them, and tell them the good news about Jesus...

Not that I'm a big supporter of Blair's, but it hardly seems like a profitable occasion to evangelise…

daughter

Apr 8th 2008, 06:09 PM

Neither was being prime minister, apparently. He was even persuaded not to say "God bless" when he was in office, so as not to "offend" the great british public.

He doesn't have to go there at all - by being there he suggests approval of the lifestyle. That's a form of negative evangelism.

And I've managed to evangelise homosexuals - two men sitting round a camp fire curled up in each other's arms. I can't say they necessarily took what I was saying on board. But I wouldn't have set next to them if I thought it would encourage their sin, and increase the risk of damnation. I sat next to them and talked because I don't want them to go to hell. If I couldn't have done that I'd have walked away. Any Christian should react that way.

Ecumaniac

Apr 8th 2008, 06:21 PM

Neither was being prime minister, apparently. He was even persuaded not to say "God bless" when he was in office, so as not to "offend" the great british public.

While being seriously offended would seem petty, I'm glad that Britain manages the separation of church and state matters more effectively than America.

He doesn't have to go there at all - by being there he suggests approval of the lifestyle. That's a form of negative evangelism.

The article said he was invited because of his help with the Civil Partnerships Bill, in which case his attendance implies only support of that Bill. But I agree that if he wanted to evangelise, he should not have attended at all. (For one thing, it would be the height of rudeness!)

And I've managed to evangelise homosexuals - two men sitting round a camp fire curled up in each other's arms.

I'm not sure I understand… Why did these men invite you to sit with them?

daughter

Apr 8th 2008, 07:47 PM

Because my husband was a well known campaigner, and had run a grassroots animal rights magazine for eighteen years. He was well known and thought of in the UK, and his conversion sent shock waves to all who knew him. One of them had heard me share the gospel at his funeral. They wanted to know more.

I wasn't rude, and they gradually dropped the "gay shell", that is to say, they stopped theatrically fondling each other in an effort to shock, and stopped making aggressive comments. I decided specifically NOT to talk about homosexuality as the main sin, and just talked about my various sins (of which there are many) and how God delivered me. I described my husband's conversion, and one of them was visibly moved. We ended up talking about how Christianity is different from all other religions on the planet. They agreed the core difference is that Christianity takes sin seriously, and blames it on humans. As they are animal rights activists, they found that easy to accept.

I don't think it's rude to share the gospel by the way. But I don't think it's a good idea to go into a situation in which you know you can't do anything to save others. But I realise that Tony Blair is a politician, not an evangelist, so I'm wrong to criticise him since he's not born again.

Ecumaniac

Apr 8th 2008, 08:11 PM

[Wiping sweat from my brow.] I was so anxious that you might have simply seen them by the fire and decided to impose yourself upon them, and maybe focused on homosexuality alone. Phew! I had almost resolved not to reply to you if that was the case!

I'm glad to discover that my lack of knowledge about you led me to a premature conclusion, and that you are respectful and intelligent. :) Having heard and witnessed many accounts, most gay people expect condemnation to play a prominent part in any act of witnessing by a Christian, and are generally refreshed to discover people who can see past their sexual preference, so well done daughter.

I don't think it's rude to share the gospel by the way.

Because of my upbringing, I generally find evangelism difficult, particularly because I was carefully taught not to impose my views upon people. That's part of the reason I took up what my university CU refers to as "hot chocolate evangelism," where we set up a stand to provide hot chocolate and biscuits to people who are leaving Students' Union events late at night. It warms their stomachs, is a great advertising opportunity, and can lead to some interesting and profitable discussions. Of course, the greatest hope is to plant some seeds in people's hearts, and lead them to Christ, which does happen in several cases… But even if the yield is small, it's a good step towards getting out of one's shell.

daughter

Apr 8th 2008, 08:51 PM

Actually, the most amazing thing for folks who knew me before I was Christian is that I identified myself as bisexual, and was very "pro gay." I wrote an animal rights novel (now thankfully out of print) in which two of the protagonists are in a homosexual relationship, and I used to get very het up with homophobes.

So I'm probably better able to evangelise than if that had never been one of my sins. Almost I feel that God allowed me to be as bad as I was for so long, in order that I could be a better witness for Him when He separated me out of the world.

Hope that makes sense...

Yes, I hate it when folks jump on a homosexual for that one sin. That's the one sin that you can't convict them on, everything in their culture tells them it's alright.

Far better to talk about pride, or how good works don't work, our jealousies and partisan policies get in the way... People will be more likely to understand that, whatever their sexuality.

WonderWoman4Jesus

Apr 8th 2008, 09:21 PM

Rasco, I've read this thread, and first off when members ask you to search for threads that are similar, that is because this subject has been posted ad nausem for a while now. It's one of the more common things we're asked and we have several excellent posts on it. Several posts of a Biblical debate, Christians answer, and just general questions. Second, since you are on this site, I am assuming you are open to Christian answers to your questions, so you are going to get Biblical evidence, but there are others studies (scientific as well) to back up the Bible.

First off, God does specifically condemn homosexuality:1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

God says it is a sin. However, so is lying, drunkedness, adultry, and a whole host of other things. We cannot ignore the Bible condeming it, however, Christians are to be loving to those struggling witht the sin. Gays need to not be in a relationship, but they will probably always struggle with SSA (same-sex attraction). Being tempted isn't a sin, but rather giving into temptation.

I would suggest checking out exodus, they have ministeries to help those struggling with this issue and addressing it.

Jerome1

Apr 9th 2008, 12:40 AM

I didn't read through all the responses, but it's important not to categorize sodomites as just being homosexuals. It is also wrong among hetrosexuals, that way you can't be accused of being homophobic.

Revinius

Apr 9th 2008, 01:13 AM

i am homophobic, i flee from all sins.

Joyfilled

Apr 9th 2008, 01:50 PM

i think im right in saying that Jesus never addressed the issue directly, does that mean we should still follow the old testament advice on gays?

Actually as John 1:1-2 and John 1:14 tells us, Jesus is the Word. Since our one God is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, then Jesus and the word are synonymous because the word was inspired the Holy Spirit which means it comes from God. And the Word says that homosexuality is a sin. But even if one doesn't know that Jesus and the word are synonymous, Jesus would never contradict God because He is God. ;)

ProjectPeter

Apr 9th 2008, 02:20 PM

Peter, you are aware that this means Rasco can no longer read any responses to him in this thread? Unless you have given him special access to the Controversial Issues forums, that is.

It seems a little unfortunate if he can't, since he started this thread to seek advice about his mother! This might also explain (combined with Spontaneous Character Insertion Syndrome, which apparently causes keyboards to insert random symbols into words like "gay" and "homosexual") why he had trouble finding decent threads about homosexuality.I am fully aware that he cannot read it in here. If you will also notice that his status is not one that he can reply even if it was on the open board. Unfortunately... there are times we get folks that come in here with "yes, I am a Christian" chosen as their option. In fact... they aren't and they just come in here to play with Christians.

And rest assured... if he did a search... he'd of not had problems finding threads on the subject here on this board. Over the years there have been many and not all of them have the goofy spelling stuff. ;)

Ecumaniac

Apr 9th 2008, 03:19 PM

If you will also notice that his status is not one that he can reply even if it was on the open board. Unfortunately... there are times we get folks that come in here with "yes, I am a Christian" chosen as their option. In fact... they aren't and they just come in here to play with Christians.

I noticed that he was on Coffee Break, because I had resolved to update him with some of the responses on this thread and found that I could not. Nothing he said so far leads me to suspect that he is anything more than a young person struggling with difficult questions; or were there other posts which I am not privy to?

ProjectPeter

Apr 9th 2008, 03:21 PM

The fact that he is where he is... would probably be a clue that you aren't privy to some other things. We can delete post that you guys never lay eyes on. We don't just close folks out of discussion for any old reason. ;)

daughter

Apr 9th 2008, 03:28 PM

How long does coffee break last for?

Ecumaniac

Apr 9th 2008, 03:30 PM

The fact that he is where he is... would probably be a clue that you aren't privy to some other things. We can delete post that you guys never lay eyes on. We don't just close folks out of discussion for any old reason. ;)

Good to know! Thanks, PP; I'm less concerned now I know there's more to the decision than I've witnessed here. :)

ProjectPeter

Apr 9th 2008, 03:54 PM

How long does coffee break last for?
Depends on the person.

harry

Apr 10th 2008, 07:58 AM

on a side-note, i was intrigued by a uk opposition party leader, david cameron, using a Biblical reference in a recent speech :

...Our competitors used the fat years to prepare for the lean years...

it used to be widespread for educated people to know their Bible in depth but nowadays few politicians do.

I know that Oxford University now says that the quality of students applying to take English Literature degrees has markedly declined: most undergraduates across the country no longer understand the great literature of the past, because they are not knowledgeable about the Bible, and therefore they don't understand the full richness of Shakespeare, Milton, even Dickens.

Literature used to be replete with Biblical pearls. Our current generation simply can't understand what their forebears are talking about because they no longer have the language.

I'm not saying that all "great writers" were saved, but the Bible coloured Western thought to such an extent that it shows even in secular literature. Modern would be literature students are Biblically illiterate, and it shows in their appreciation (or lack thereof) of English literature.

It's a great shame. If I hadn't had a Dad who thought literature, poetry and history important, I mightn't have been exposed to enough bible truth by osmosis to be saved. I thank God for my (as yet unsaved) Dad, and his insistence that I be properly educated.